Grand Theft Education (continued)

I have already expressed my dissent to some of the opinions in this article pertaining to video games. But the authors also attack the film medium and the sci-fi and fantasy genres. This heresy must be dealt with. First, film. Zengotita writes, "I worry that games have the same effect on the imagination that movies have." Her argument is that the book version of a story is always better than the movie. With most film adaptations, I agree. However, what about original movies? "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," for example, is an excellent commentary on the Kong-fu genre. "The Matrix" is very fitting for discussing deconstructionism (the sequels are terrible). Furthermore, if movies are so detrimental to the imagination, how is it that I continue to analyze and re-interpret the original Star Wars Trilogy? Because I'm an uber-geek. But it's also because, like a good novel, a good film tells a story that leaves room for imagination.

Second, Kostor claims the sci-fi and fantasy genre's are plot driven and formulaic. According to Avrich, genre fiction (which only seems to include sci-fi and fantasy) is not very good at developing characters. At this point, their "debate" seems more like an unfounded rant about anything the authors can connect to video games. Have they forgotten that all literature falls into some sort of genre? Have they forgotten that Victorian literature is notoriously plot-driven? If the genre's of sci-fi and fantasy are so limited in terms of character, what do they think about Douglas Adam's work? Phillip Dick? Mary Schelly?

matt

Grand Theft Education

This article angered me. Although the article is set up as a debate, there is way too much agreement upon the negative portrayal of video games (even by the game developer!). Although Koster mentions some positive aspects of video gaming (a learning environment where "it's okay to fail," scaffolded play, and the social nature of gaming), some of his comments against gaming are shocking. For example, Kostor support's Zengotita's idea that, essentially, video games encourage "systems-based thinking," which means that those who play video games do not appreciate the real world as much as those who do not play. It is strange that Kostor agrees since he himself has a masters in creative writing, which probably required some appreciation of real world detail. Don't most films and novels have a system/framework? If they did not, how else would we compare and critique these other art forms? Somehow Kostor has avoided being brainwashed. What I also found repugnant was Avrich's belief that "Every year, [students'] attention spans get shorter." If that is true, how is it that some kids will play a video game for an entire day? Obviously, some students find their school work boring and meaningless. What is most problematic about this article is that the contributors seem to collectively think of video games as text books, not works of art. The authors treat video games like a new educational tool (blogs, wikis, podcasts), rather than the early stages of a new medium of art. Video games will never replace literature or film in the English classroom, but they are one more medium that engages students in a meaningful experience. Or maybe I'm saying this because I've already been brainwashed.

matt